Simulation vs. Mechanics in Gaming

Like many readers of Counter, gaming is my primary hobby. This is
usually met with some perplexity whenever I tell someone this. The
usual question is "What sort of games do you play?" For some reason
this is always a rather difficult question to answer. I think the
problem is the lack of common ground with which to start from and so
normally Iíll first ask the person what sorts of games (if any)
theyíve played. Usually Iíll get the standard responses of Monopoly,
Risk or other Parker Brothers/Milton Bradley type games. Sometimes
theyíll mention that theyíve seen (or even played) an Avalon Hill
wargame. Even more times Iíll get a somewhat blank stare and a quiet
mention of Chess or Checkers. Depending on which Iíll then try to
explain the differences and similarities between the games theyíre
aware of and the ones I play.

The best general-purpose term I've been able to come up with (for
describing "our" games) is "Monopoly crossed with Chess".
One of the main reasons for this is that everyone seems to have a
decent enough understanding of these two games so they know what Iím
talking about. There are other, more important reasons as well.
First, the mechanics of Monopoly are quite similar to most of the
"German type" games Iím talking about: pieces are moved
around a board, ownership of certain locations are recorded with
certificates, money is transferred between players and random events
occur. Personally Iím not a big fan of Monopoly, the lack of
strategy or decisions in the game does not appeal to me. (I know the
game has its fans and they'll state that the strategy is in the
negotiating and trading part of the game. While I grudgingly agree I
still believe that the game is predominantly luck.) For this reason
I don't like to just use Monopoly, I don't see it as worthy of the
challenge our games present. Chess, on the other hand, is certainly
a game with many tough decisions and strategies but is also not a
good example by itself for a couple of reasons: Itís highly
abstract, strictly two-player and is extremely asocial. (Before the
Chess aficionadoís jump all over me Iím referring to the actual
playing of the game and not any associated gathering or discussion.)
The relevant part is that you are usually limited to a few moves
(well, okay, maybe not that few) but the decision of which one to do
is difficult and the crux of the game. So, what I then state is that
these games have mechanics similar to that of Monopoly while having
the tough decisions of Chess. To me this seems about the best quick
description I can come up with.

Sometimes the person will want a more in depth description of a
game, usually something they've seen on my shelf. Here, the hardest
part is whether to emphasis the mechanics or the simulation of the
game. I find that its easier to describe the latter: If it were
Monopoly I'd state that you play a wealthy landowner buying and
trading lots of property. Your goal is to erect houses and hotels
and collect the most rent from the other players. Then I'd state how
you actually went about doing that.

For Settlers of Catan I'd state that "You're in charge of a
growing colony on a newly discovered island. Your goal is to have
the largest and most prosperous community. You increase the worth of
your colony by building roads, settlements and cities, here's how
you do it..."

This is often enough the get someone's interest but it really
doesn't tell him or her too much about how the game actually works.
Should the person show interest I'll usually delve into the
mechanics: "Your settlements are situated on the corner of three
hexes. See those numbers? Well, at the start of every turn two dice
are rolled. If any of those numbers come up you take a corresponding
resource card..." For the most part this approach seems to work
really well.

To me, the simulation depicted and the actual mechanics are the
two "pillars" on which all games are built. Obviously, some games
rely much more heavily on one than the other: I don't think there's
much of a simulation being depicted in Gipf and the best
role-playing games have no mechanics whatsoever.

One of the biggest criticisms of German type games is that
they're "thematically challenged". That is, that they really are
abstract games and that any theme is largely irrelevant to the game
itself or the reasoning behind certain rules. There are any number
of examples that can be used to illustrate this: Why can you only
purchase three shares per turn in Acquire? Why can't you use Dragons
to travel that road in Elfenland? Why does El Grande end after 9
turns?

Wargames are entirely different in this regard. Here the emphasis
is heavily slanted to the simulation side of things. Using Squad
Leader as an example, the movement rates are what they are in order
to reflect "reality". If, in real life, it took a squad of men two
minutes to cross a certain terrain then the game should reflect
that. If it doesn't then the game suffers because its presents
itself as realistic.

A lot of the simulation aspect of a game is merely to provide
"story". This is simply the method by which we translate the events
of a game into "real life". Instead of "rolling a 1 during the
movement phase of Bob's turn" we "Shot done a British bomber making
a run over Berlin." Rather than "Moving tokens along a track" we're
"running with the bulls in Pamplona."

Obviously different games succeed at this better than others. I'm
not sure that I can really see the ancient civilizations in conflict
with each other when I play Euphrat & Tigris. Its a little
clearer when I play Vinci and even more so with Civilization.
Similarly, I doubt very much that Squad Leader would have many
(any?) fans if it had been presented with identical rules but no
"story". If that's simply a piece with x,y & z attributes rather
than a squad of six men armed with rifles, where's the interest? In
a (rules) simple game I think this is acceptable, the success of
pure abstract games such as Go, Gipf or Chess speak to this, but not
in something as intense as Squad Leader.

Even simpler games often rely on this, however. In Illuminati,
players try to control or destroy various "groups" such as Oil
Companies, Trekkies or the IRS. It'd be very easy to remove this
information from the game. Really they're just titles and
illustrations for certain cards. But SO much of the enjoyment comes
from the bizarre and humorous situations that arise: "The Loan
Sharks, with the help of the Hackers will attempt to control the
Pentagon." While the game would be the same, it would lose much of
its fun without this "story".

One game that I was repeatedly subjected to was Talisman. Now I
should state that the game (2nd edition by the way) in its basic
form is probably okay. There's really very little in the way of
decision making but at an hour or so it's enjoyable once in a while.
However, my friends played with EVERY expansion, which dragged the
game out into a four (or more) hour monster. (I'm often at a loss as
to why so many people like to ruin a good game by overloading it
with expansions but that's the subject for a future column.) Four
hours of making the (usually bleedingly obvious) choice of going
left or right is just not my idea of fun. So why is the game so
popular? Part of the reason could be that very simplicity, the game
was and is a hit amongst many non-gamers. I believe the main reason
though is that the game provides good stories. This is certainly
helped by the role-playing aspects of the game: You play a single
character and travel around the board (world), exploring and having
encounters. This is very easy to translate into stories about what
you're doing and makes for an enjoyable experience for many.

In Simulacrum #5 (p. 39) Joe Scoleri writes in reference to GDW's
Belter: "With the influx of "theme over simulation" oriented German
games, it is unlikely that we will ever see many board games like
Belter again. Today's rendition of Belter would no
doubt be a highly abstracted game with large, glossy components and
little simulation feel". I can empathize with Mr. Scoleri to some
degree. (I say to some degree because a choice between German style
games and American style ones is an easy one for me.) Still, I DO
miss the "realism" that games like Belter provide. I like that I can
easily visualize what's represented when I move a piece on the
gameboard. Very often with German type games you're forced to come
up with a reason why a certain rule exists. This detracts rather
than contributes to the games "story".

In all this argument, there's nothing to say that a game which
has more detailed mechanics is necessarily more "accurate" than a
simpler one. The argument can be made that, in some sense, Squad
Leader is entirely unrealistic. The player has far more control of
his pieces than his real world counterpart ever would. Hence, the
decisions and actions that the player makes don't really simulate
what's happening all that well. What Squad Leader is actually
modeling is a situation where omniscient beings (the players) are
fighting a battle where they can only interact through the actions
of WW2 soldiers. The game may be a highly accurate simulation of
this situation but its one that has never occurred in real life. The
decisions (or "gameplay") of real life commanders may be very
different from what Squad Leader players are faced with. If this is
the case then it'd be fair to state that it is, in fact,
unrealistic.

On the other hand El Grande might very accurately reflect the
types of decisions that 13th century Spanish Grandes had to make.
Obviously there's a high degree of abstraction. It could be that the
Grandes themselves weren't involved in the actual implementation of
their orders and so this abstraction is justified. "Advisers! I wish
to contest Senor Carmiguels influence of the Basque peoples. What
are my options?"

(Before anyone starts writing a letter on why either of these
examples is ludicrous or wrong, please note that I'm only using them
to explain the point I'm trying to make.)

This "type" of accuracy is based largely a games particular
focus. By focus I'm referring to what role the players are placed
in. Imagine a railroad construction game. If the "focus" is as a
company's owner then the game should concentrate on the types of
decisions that owners had to make. These are bound to be very
different than a game where the focus is as a construction foreman.
In the former case the important choices might be on what railroads
to invest in or what cities to build to. The actual techniques of
building the track can be easily abstracted without loss of
"realism". In real life it might not have been possible to build a
route because a mountain range made it inaccessible. In game terms
this might be simulated by the fact that a 60 degree bend tile isn't
available. This is acceptable because the tycoon isn't concerned
about the reasons why a route can't be built, only whether or not it
can be. For a game that focuses on the foreman this would be
inexcusable. Why can't he build track that follows a 60 degree
curve? It doesn't make sense to impose this limitation. For the game
to be believable (with this focus) it would need to more accurately
reflect the difficulties a foreman would face. Other aspects could
be highly abstract: The amount of money a company pays in dividends
(or makes available for construction) could be determined by the
roll of the dice. This would be fine, he's got very little control
of this in real life so the abstraction is justified.

When I first started thinking about this article I thought that
"simulation" and "mechanics" were at opposite ends from each other
in regards to a games design. After further thought it occurs to me
that they're actually fairly independent from each
other.